Thanks for your answers. Don't want to drill you, but it seems to be the format to ask you questions :>)
> How will private capital and bankers be expropriated of their
> power over industries, art and otherwise ?
.... -clip-
If you are asking how does the population cohere into powerful movements that win a trajectory of changes which better people's lives and eventually grasp control of the economy -- with workers councils taking over workplaces, and consumers councils becoming operative in neighborhoods, etc. -- there is no single answer, there are an immense range of component aspects of such a process, of course.
^^^^^^ Charles: Yes, I am asking what your strategy is for displacing the current ruling class , which presumably will resist the institution of parcecon. What is involved in workers councils taking over workplaces ? Do you have a brief outline of the major categories of components of the process ?
> How does parcecon preserve the power of women in making
> consumer choices ?
I don't actually understand the question.
^^^^^ Charles: I'm thinking consumption decisions are an area of more women's power than in most areas of life under the current economic regime. Is parcecon premised upon aboliton of male supremacy ? I believe you address this in what you say next:
If a parecon existed in a society with sexist kin and cultural and political forms, there would be a shapr contradiction because the parecon would violate -- certainly not support -- any gender hierarchies emerging from those other realms.
> How does Parcecon stand in relation to the principles : from
> each according to ability to each according to need or work ?
> Is this its equity and diversity ?
>From each according to ability is a bit misleading -- even for those who
advocate it. Suppose I am much better at physics than at writing -- does
that mean society forces me to do physics so my productivity is
optimally utilizing my ability?
^^^^^^ Charles: I always took it to mean that there would be enough freedom such that , if you were good at physics, AND YOU WANTED TO DO PHYSICS ( I hadn't really thought about those who were good at physics but didn't want to do it )you could and you would be encouraged to give as much as you could, according to your ability. I'd say if you didn't want to do physics, no you wouldn't be forced to do it even if you were good at it. Would that be parceconic ? Well as you say next...
^^^^
Not really...rather we require only that society be organized so that I will choose what I wish to do, and there will be incentives so that if I opt to work in my less rather than more productive paths...it will have been sensible in light of the presumably strong reasons I have (given my rejecting the incentives). The incentives can be social, not just material.
Reward each according to work is very vague. Does one reward for the output of work? Or for the act of doing it -- measured in the effort and sacrifice expended? Parecon does the latter. Output includes the latter as a component, but also rewards better tools, happening to produce things that are more valuable, having more skill and what it enables, innate qualities, etc. Parecon doesn't think these additions are either morally or economically warranted.
Rewarding need is also vague. Who determines need?
^^^^^ Charles: Start out with physiological need: Food, air, water, shelter, medicine, as you say, medical care, exercise. Not rewarding need. Meeting needs. Then education, probably. Love and affection are needed.
Then there would be wants: eat , drink and be merry.
^^^^^^
If I do, it means I can take anything and everything. Not very viable. If some social arrangement determines it, then it is really rewarding whatever it is using to make the judgement. On the other hand, rewarding those who can't work -- can't exert effort and sacrifice -- is part of parecon, as is providing "insurance" which is to say, caring for those who suffer harm and as a result have great need.